sions in the kingdom, and thereby create an uniformity of decision in those Courts upon the points so decided and reported, which is extremely desirable. The great thing to be attended to in drawing a special case, is, to state facts, and not merely the evidence from which facts are to be inferred. In most instances, facts are proved by express evidence; in some, they are to be implied from circumstantial evidence; and, in these latter cases, it is the fact which is to be so implied, which must be stated, and not the circumstances from which it is to be implied. See R. v. Bray, Burr. S. C. 682; R. v. Page, 2 Bott, 736. Where a special case stated that the pauper's husband hired himself as waiter to a tavern, and at the same time had the tap, (that is, a privilege of selling liquors there,) and had the use of a cellar for his liquors, and that for his place of waiter, and the tap, &c. he paid the yearly sum of £60: it was argued, that as the hiring as waiter appeared to have been general, the Court would presume it to be a hiring for a year; but the Court held, that, as the Sessions had not found it to be a hiring for a year, they could not presume it to be so. R. v. Seacroft, 2 M. & S. 472. Where a servant left her mistress before the end of a year, and what passed between them upon that occasion was stated in the special case, but it was not stated whether there was a dissolution of the contract or a dispensation only: the case, on this account, was sent back to the Sessions to be restated; Lord Kenyon, C.J. expressing his regret that "the Courts of Quarter Sessions departed from the rule formerly established, by stating evidence instead of facts in the special case;" and Grose, J. said, "the Court of Quarter Sessions should state the result of the evidence; and, in a case of this kind, they should state the fact one way or the other, whether this were a dispensation with the service, or a dissolution of the contract." R. v. St. Peter Mancroft, 8 T. R. 477. So, where a Session's case stated, that in 1774 the pauper's father was put apprentice by the parish officers of Ditcheat, with the assent of two justices, to one Powell, a farmer in that parish, " for and in respect of Mr. Wm. Wilmot his estate," and there was a covenant by Powell to teach him the farming business; Powell was tenant of a farm in Ditcheat, belonging to Wilmot, who was a stocking-maker, and the indenture was, in fact, executed by Wilmot, but the case did not state that it was executed by Powell; the apprentice never, in fact, served Powell, but served Wilmot, in the parish of St. Cuthbert, as a stocking-weaver. It was contended, that this was a binding to Powell, with intent that the pauper should serve Wilmot; and that, after the lapse of time since the binding and service, it ought to be presumed that Powell either assigned the apprentice to the latter, or assented to his serving him but the Court held, that these ought to have been found as facts by the Sessions; and as it was not found that Powell had either assigned D : the indentures to Wilmot, or assented to the apprentice serving him, it did not appear from the case that the pauper's father gained any settlement by a service under the indenture. R. v. St. Cuthbert, Wells, 5 B. & Adolph. 939. So, the Court will not presume fraud, from any circumstances whatever which may be stated in a Session's case; it must be found specifically by the Sessions. Where a pauper, after being removed under an order of removal, returned the same night to the tenement he had occupied at the time of his arrival, and afterwards resided there a sufficient time to gain a settlement: it was objected, that the pauper's return was fraudulent, and, therefore, that he gained no settlement; but the Court held, that they could not presume fraud, it must be stated. R. v. Fillongley, 2 T. R. 709. So, where in a Session's case it appeared that the pauper hired for a year, and served until within six days of the end of the year, when two substantial inhabitants of the parish (who were afterwards reimbursed by the parish officers) gave him two guineas to leave his service and the parish, before his year expired, and he accordingly applied for, and got his discharge from, his master, who paid him his wages, deducting a portion for the time he had not served: but, because fraud was not specifically found by the Sessions, the Court would not imply from the facts found; and, as it appeared that the pauper had not actually served a year, the Court held that he had not gained a settlement. R. v. Preston, 2 Bott, 310. Where a Session's case stated facts relating to the taking of a tenement by a pauper, from which fraud might fairly be inferred, and the Sessions were therein stated to have holden, that, "under these circumstances," the pauper gained no settlement; the Court held, that, as the Sessions had not expressly found this renting of the tenement to have been fraudulent, they could not presume it to be so, and they therefore held that the pauper gained a settlement, and they quashed the order of Sessions. R. v. Weston, Burr. S. C. 166; 2 Str. 1156. Where from a Session's case it appeared that the pauper, settled in Tillingham, rented a tenement in Bradwell, and, being unable to pay his year's rent, the overseers of Tillingham lent him money for that purpose: the Court said, that they could not hold this to be fraudulent, as fraud had not been expressly found by the Sessions; if the overseer had advanced this money merely for the purpose of relieving the pauper, there was no fraud in the case; if for the purpose of his gaining a settlement in Bradwell, there was; the Court therefore sent the case back to the Sessions, to find the fact one way or the other. R. V. Tillingham, 1 B. & Adolph. 180. Where, in a similar case, the Sessions found payment of rent by overseers to have been fraudulent, the Court held, that no settlement was gained by it. R. v. St. Sepulchre, Cambridge, 1 B. & Adolph. 924. Where the Sessions, in a case, after stating the renting of a tenement by the pauper, and the circumstances attending it, stated that it was fraudulent, but that the parish was not privy to the fraud: the Court held, that, as the Sessions had stated the renting to be fraudulent, that finding was conclusive. R. v. Llanwinio, 4 T. R. 473. Whether such a finding by the Sessions, be conclusive or not of the fact of fraud, came in question in R. v. Woodland, 1 T. R. 261; but the Court then said that it was unnecessary, in that particular case, to consider the point, as they were of opinion that the Sessions were right in finding fraud, under the particular circumstances of the case. But in a subsequent case, where it was stated that the pauper's husband, who was settled in the parish of Great Glenn, took a house in the parish of Leir, as tenant from year to year, at the yearly rent of £3, and resided there with the pauper from April, 1827, until the 14th May, 1831, when he died; she resided in the house afterwards, and was relieved by the parish of Great Glenn; in the August following the husband's death, the attorney for the parish of Great Glenn called upon the pauper, and offered to take out letters of administration for her to her husband, and did take them out afterwards, and it was stated in the case that this was done fraudulently, and at the expense of the parish of Great Glenn, for the purpose of settling the pauper in the parish of Leir: the Court held, that although the Sessions had found fraud, yet, as they had also stated the grounds upon which they found it, the Court could examine and see whether those grounds warranted the finding; and, in considering the facts stated, they did not think they amounted to that species of fraud which would prevent the estate of the intestate from vesting in the pauper as administratrix, as she was bound by law to take out administration, and consented to its being done; they therefore held, that she gained a settlement. R. v. Great Glenn, 5 B. & Adolph. 188. But where the Sessions, in a case, state their own conclusion of fact from doubtful facts and circumstances which may or may not warrant them, the Court will not in general disturb their decision. And therefore where, upon the trial of an appeal against an order of removal, the respondents set up a settlement in the appellant parish by hiring and service, and the Sessions confirmed the order, subject to a case, which stated a very doubtful case of settlement: the Court of King's Bench held, that, as the Sessions, by confirming the order, had virtually found that there was a contract of hiring for a year, and a service for a year, and as there were premises to warrant that decision, the Court would not disturb it; it was entirely a question of fact for the Sessions to decide. R. v. St. Andrew, Cambridge, 8 B. & C. 664. So, where it was stated in a case that the pauper's mother, wishing to obtain a service for her son, asked one Slater if he wanted a boy, and, upon his answering yes, she asked him what wages he would give, and he said, " let him stop what time he will, I will give him satisfaction, if not in money, in clothes;" the pauper accordingly went into the service, and stopped 13 months, when he ran away on account of his master beating him the Sessions found there was no general hiring; and as there were some facts in the case, from which such a conclusion might be drawn, the Court of King's Bench refused to disturb the decision. R. v. Rosliston, 8 B. & C. 668. So, where the Sessions found an implied hiring for a year, from facts (stated in a case) which warranted such a conclusion, the Court of King's Bench said, that as it was a question of fact for the justices to decide, and as they had exercised their judgment upon it, they would not disturb their decision. R. v. St. Martin in Leicester, 8 B. & C. 674. The special case may be in this form : Between { The township of A. in the county of B. Appellants, and The township of C. in the same county, Respondents. This was an appeal against [an order of two justices for the removal of D. E., and Anne, his wife, from the township of C. in the county of B. to the township of A. in the same county, as the place of their last legal settlement.] The appeal was tried at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the county of B., when that Court confirmed the said [order], subject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench on the following CASE. [Here state the facts of the case, as proved at the trial of the appeal. And you may conclude thus:] If the Court shall be of opinion that the pauper D. E. gained a settlement in the township of A., by the hiring and service aforesaid, then the orders aforesaid shall stand confirmed; but if the Court shall be of a contrary opinion, then the order of removal aforesaid, and the order of Sessions confirming the same, shall be quashed. [This of course must be varied as circumstances may require.] J. N. for the Appellants. If the case be insufficiently stated, the Court of King's Bench, if they see that it is necessary for the purposes of justice, will send it back to the Sessions to be restated. Although, according to modern practice, this is now unusual, it is entirely optional with the Court whether they will do so or not. Where, upon an appeal against an order of removal, the Sessions confirmed the order, subject to a case; the case however was so imperfectly stated, the Court would not give any opinion upon the point submitted to them, but ordered both orders to be quashed. Burr. S. C. 232. The reporter, indeed, questions the authority of the Court to quash the orders on this ground, and suggests that they ought to have sent the case back to be re-stated. Id. but see R. v. Seacraft, R. v. St. Cuthbert, and many of the cases of fraud, mentioned supra. Where a Session's case stated that an indenture being produced by the appellant upon notice, they had ruled that the respondents were bound to prove it, and in default of their doing so it was not received; and the Court of King's Bench held, that it was not necessary, under the circumstances, for the respondents to prove it: it then became a question, whether the case should not be sent back to the Sessions to be restated; but the Court held, that if the indenture had been received in evidence, it was clear what the decision ought to be, and they decided accordingly. R. v. Middlezoy, 2 T. R. 41. Where, upon the hearing of an appeal, the Sessions granted a case, but the counsel not agreeing upon the facts, each submitted his statement to the chairman, that he might draw up a case from them and from his notes; a case purporting to be signed by the chairman was afterwards sent up with the orders, in return to the certiorari, but the attorney for one of the parties, conceiving it not to accord with the facts proved, applied to the chairman upon the subject, who stated that he had no recollection of having signed the case; but the clerk of the peace, on the contrary, made oath that the case sent up was a true copy of one which was signed by the chairman, the practice being to send up a copy and not the original: upon an application to the Court of King's Bench for a rule to have the case sent back to be restated, the Court refused it, saying, that as the case came before them with the signature and apparent authority of the chairman, they could not, without very strong grounds, presume it not to be his, and that the matter alleged was not sufficient to impeach it. R. v. Matlock, 5 B. & Adolph. 883. When a case is sent back to be restated, it is sometimes necessary to examine witnesses again to enable the Court of Quarter Sessions to do so; sometimes the evidence already taken, as it appears upon the chairman's notes, will be sufficient for the purpose. Where a case was sent back to the Sessions to be restated, and at the following Sessions, when the matter came under the consideration of the justices, they refused to hear the witnesses again, although there were justices then on the bench who had not been on it when the appeal was heard; but the Court of King's Bench afterwards held, that under the circumstances of the case it was not necessary that they should do so. R. v. Bray, Burr. S. C. 682. But where, upon an appeal by a person, to whom a pauper child had been bound apprentice by a parish, the Sessions gave their decision subject to a case; and having stated evidence only, and not the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence, the Court sent it back to them to be restated in this respect, and also that it might be stated whether the defend |